I thought I was going to have to explain why Tuesday's Chicago Tribune lineup (more visibly so in print) treating the three big Monday Supreme Court decisions was idiotic in presenting them all as mere wins for Bushism. But Ed Brayton at Positive Liberty has conserved valuable electrons by doing it for me:
"Just in case you’re getting too depressed about the Supreme Court’s rulings on Monday, I should note that they did get one right in FEC v Wisconsin Right to Life [full ruling here]. It was another 5-4 ruling with the same breakdown - Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy in the majority, Souter, Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg in dissent. But on this one the conservative majority got it right. The ruling strikes down a provision of the McCain-Feingold law that bans all advocacy groups from airing commercials about issues within 2 months of an election. This is an absurd law and a clear violation of the first amendment. I’m disappointed that it was only 5-4, it should be a 9-0 no-brainer ruling. And I have the same reaction to the liberal minority here that I had to the liberal majority in Kelo: I do not understand[how] anyone who considers themselves a liberal can justify such a ruling."
Suppressing student speech and insulating government promotion of religion from court challenges are quite different on the merits, even if the personnel are the same.